




s 



Hollinger Corp. 
P H8.5 



C^dcctA, sLjfeju* 



ORGANIZATION FOR THE ENLARGEMENT BY THE STATE OF TEXAS OF 
ITS INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 




A STUDY OF THE FINANCIAL BASIS OF THE STATE UNIVER- 
SITIES AND AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES IN 
FOURTEEN STATES. 

The most practical means of forming an intelligent opinion of the proper 
financial basis which should be provided by a State for its institutions of 
higher education will be afforded by a genuine study of existing conditions 
in all the States that have seriously undertaken to secure efficient services 
from such institutions. 

In some States, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, great endowed institutions have obviated 
the necessity of universities maintained by the co-operation of the people. 

In many States the people have not yet learned to understand the com- 
monwealth's need of the services of higher education. They still entertain 
the notion that only those who attend a school are benefited by that school, 
and are blind to the truth that higher education may be of incalculable worth 
and service to society at large. It would be profitless to study the condition 
of the institutions maintained by such States, unless one wished to consider 
warning examples. 

Universities which derive their financial support wholly or mainly from 
endowments have been excluded from this study. They would, indeed, afford 
many notable examples of useful lines and methods of service; and in any 
study intended to elaborate a program of desirable activities on the part of a 
university, the practice of such institutions should be carefully considered. 
Some such study may be undertaken by the present writer in the future. 
The limited purpose of this investigation is to show the financial basis of 
the leading State institutions of higher education, in order that the people 
of Texas may learn what the people of other States are doing for themselves. 

It should be noted that, in some of the States whose people are doing most 
for themselves, strong denominational colleges and great endowed universities 
also exist, rendering their share of the desired services. The most notable 
cases are Leland Stanford University in California, the University of Chicago 
in Illinois, and the University of Cincinnati in Ohio. To show what those 
States are really getting, these universities should have been included along 
with the State institutions ; but only the State institutions are taken into 
account. The comparison with Texas here presented is, therefore, more favor- 
able to Texas than the full truth would be. 

The indicated principles of selection lead to the following States, as those 
whose Legislatures have provided approximately adequate financial resources 
for the development of efficient State universities: California, Colorado, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Wisconsin. I do not mean that all the universities concerned are efficiently 
organized or administered ; but the people have undertaken to do their part. 

Colorado and Nebraska fall so low when income is divided by number of 
students, that it may seem illjudged to have included them ; but the 10-cent 



—2— 

university tax in Nebraska and the 8-cents tax in Colorado show that they 
'"have seriously undertaken to secure efficient services." A proper founda- 
tion has been laid and conditions will improve as their wealth increases. 

Little Wyoming, with her State University tax of 5 cents on the $100, 
should have been included so far as the wise foundation which has been laid 
by her people is concerned; but both the State and the University are yet so 
small (the population of the State is only 145,965), that its inclusion would 
cause misleading results. At present the University of Wyoming costs more 
per inhabitant, more per $1000 of wealth in the State, and more per pupil, 
than any other State university in the country; but these consequences of 
the small size of the University and the small population and wealth of the 
State could not be fairly compared with disparate conditions in other States. 

The omission of Virginia may be surprising to some readers; but in spite 
of the priceless asset possessed by the University of Virginia in its honorable 
traditions, and in spite of the brave efforts of its administrators and faculty, 
the people of the Old Dominion have not yet provided a financial basis suffi- 
cient to justify the inclusion of Virginia in a group selected on the principle 
here applied. Except for Kansas, which is to be presently mentioned, it is 
believed that no other omission calls for explanation. 

There remain three States which stand between the omitted States, and any 
one or the average of all of the States chosen. Those three are Kansas, Mis- 
souri, and Texas. In each, movements are on foot to secure the services to the 
commonwealth, needed everywhere, and which are being enjoyed by the people 
of the most progressives States. 

Kansas might have been included in the leading group, if one regarded 
only the rate of expenditure per inhabitant or per unit of wealth ; but when 
the ratio of number of teachers to number of students, and income divide! 
by number of students are considered, the former places it little above and 
the latter puts it below Texas. The people of Kansas spend three times as 
much per inhabitant for higher education as clo the people of Texas; but 
Kansas, with less than half the population of Texas, has a thousand more 
students than are in the corresponding institutions in Texas. It is believed 
that Kansas will soon adopt financial measures which will secure efficiency 
in the rapidly developing work of its institutions. 

Missouri barely missed last year success in establishing a tax for the proper 
maintenance of its State University. The constitutional amendment for the 
university tax was unfortunately submitted on the same ballot with ten 
other amendments, some having been put on the ballot by joint resolution 
of the Legislature and some by initiative and referendum. All met a com- 
mon defeat. It is confidently expected that a similar amendment, freed from 
the complications of last year, will be submitted to the people and adopted 
next year. 

It remains to be seen when Texas will take a similar step, either through 
act of the Legislature or constitutional amendment, as may be required. 

President Albert Ross Hill, the great president of the University of Mis- 
souri, in a letter dated February 1, 1912, says: "The work you are begin- 
ning there should prove an inspiration to all State universities, especially this 
one, for they are, T believe, destined to be the only great universities in the 
Soul Invest — at any rate, for a long time to come." 

Gift 
Publisher 

OCT 24 | »14 



v (Q<6 —3- 

Preliminary Explanations for Table I. 

It is most significant that the States which had to be included in a group 
of "all the States* that have seriously undertaken to secure efficient services" 
from their State institutions for higher education should turn out to be ex- 
actly those States which have adopted the method of a State tax for the 
maintenance of their universities, — and no other States.** 

There is an important lesson in this for any State which precipitates its 
educational institutions into a free-for-all scramble before each Legislature 
in order to continue a precarious existence. 

Illinois is not shown in the table with any income from a State tax; 
but the Legislature of Illinois has recently enacted a law which will levy 
for the future a tax of 1 mill on the dollar (10 cents on $100) for the 
University of Illinois. After next year this tax will supply about $2,250,000 
a year. Illinois, however, would have been included on the merits of past 
years. The appreciation by the Illinois Legislature of the people's need 
of a good State University has secured appropriations so nearly sufficient 
that the need for a more systematic way of support has not been pressing 
in Illinois. For instance, the Legislature appropriated $1,216,500 for the 
year 1909-10, and $1,097,000 for 1910-11 (the year dealt with in the 
table), in addition to the university's nearly half-million dollars a year from 
other sources. Illinois has, also, the still larger University of Chicago, which 
is not taken into account at all in the comparisons shown in this study. 

It should be stated in regard to California, that during the year 1909-10 
the University of California received from private donations $1,156,323, 
much of which was available for 1910-11 ; but no part of that great assistance 
(44 cents per capita for the entire population) is shown in the income for 
last year given in the table. The attentive reader will see at various points 
how the average scale of expenditure is really much greater than the mini- 
mum result presented in the conclusion of this investigation. 

It would not have been desirable, but it was also impossible to consider 
universities apart from agricultural colleges. In nearly half of the States 
which required investigation both are combined in one university. 

For the convenience of Texas readers the separate figures for the Texas 
institutions have been given, but it is their sum, entitled "Texas," which 
should be compared with the figures for other States. The College of Indus- 
trial Arts for Women, at Denton, is a rather unique institution, and nearlv 
half of its students are yet "preparatory" ; nevertheless — in order to give 
Texas all possible credit for expenditures for higher education — that institu- 
tion was included. 

The names of the States in the tables here presented, refer, therefore, 

*The omission of Wyoming to avoid obscuring the statistical result has been explained. 

**There are three other States (Ky., S. C, and Tenn ) in which the law provides a trifling tax 
for a State university or agricultural college, but the rate of the tax is so absurdly small that it demon- 
strates the very opposite of a measure "seriously undertaken." The people are worse served than if 
their institutions were left entirely to appropriations by each legislature. 



respectively, as the case may be, either to one comprehensive State university, 
or to the sum of independent parts of such a university, as follows : 

California — University of California. 

Colorado— University of Colorado. State Agricultural College, Colorado School of 
Mines. 

Illinois — University of Illinois. 

Indiana — Indiana University, Purdue University. 

Iowa — State University of Iowa, State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. 

Michigan — University of Michigan, Michigan State Agricultural College, Michigan 
College of Mines. 

Minnesota — University of Minnesota. 

Nebraska — University of Nebraska. 

North Dakota — State University and School of Mines, North Dakota Agricultural 
College. 

Ohio — Ohio University, Ohio State University, Miami University. 

Wisconsin — University of Wisconsin. 

Kansas — University of Kansas, Kansas State Agricultural College. 

Missouri — University of Missouri. 

Texas — University of Texas. Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, State 
College for Women. 

Table I 



1910-1911 

State Universities 

and A. & M. 

Colleges 


© 
© 

X 

a o 

■+? 
ee a> 


Income 

from State 

tax 


Additional 
appropriations 
by Legislature 


From 

United 
States 

Govern- 
ment 


! 

j 

Income from 
productive 
endowment 


Income from 
private 

donations 


From 

student, fees 

and all 

other 

sources. 


Total income 

for the year 

1910-1911 


California 
Colorado 


3 

8 


$710,773 
313,920 


$301,786 
127,869 

1,097,000 

237,500 

728,650 

74,000 

1,060,377 
110,000 
222,817 
476,975 
444,135 


$75,000 
73,638 
75,000 
75,000 
75,000 
75,000 
73,000 
75,000 
75,000 
45,000 
75,000 


$203,382 
14,350 
32,468 
61,445 
42,703 
126,767 
59,157 


$ 104,898 


$276,877 $1,672,716 
132,677 662.454 


Illinois 




355,572 
217,494 
285,008 
824,548 
203,981 
130,232 
83,230 
212,346 
404 ,603 


1,560,040 


Indiana 

Iowa 


2 

4 

4f 
2 A 
10 

5* 

O 35 

2f 


350,014 
287 , 522 
823,697 
410,285 
391,500 
127,557 
554,517 
783,765 


200,000 


1,141,453 
1,418,883 


Michigan 

Minnesota 


231,612 


2,155,624 
1,806,800 


Nebraska 


42,250 




748,982 


North Dakota 


106,506 
68,405 
36,503 




615,110 


Ohio 

Wisconsin 


5,986 
45,463 


1,363,229 
1,789,469 


Average 


4.1 


$432,141 


$443,737 $71,967 


$72 ,176 


$ 53,451 


$284,233 


$1,357,706 



Kansas 


none 


none 


$886,022 


$75,000 


$38,492 




$98,533 


$1,098,047 








Missouri 


none 


none 


$638,330 


$72,187 


$64,561 




$78,715 


$853,793 








Univ. of Tex... 






$295,442 

259,250 

40,325 




$157,185 
8,234 


$100 


$30,564 

33,595 

2,350 


$483,291 


A. &M. Col... 






$63,750 


364,829 


Woman's Col . 








42,635 
















Texas 


none 


none 


$595,017 


$63,750 


$165,419 


$100 


$66,509 


$890,795 











The rates of the State taxes are on various assessment bases; for adjustments see Table III. 

In Illinois the last legislature enacted a law establishing a 10 cents tax for the State University, 
which for the future will more than double the annual appropriation given in the table. 

In the columns showing income from Private Donations and Productive Endowment, 
receipts for fellowships, scholarships, and prizes have been excluded. Such moneys help individuals, 
and in some cases (especially endowed fellowships) help the public service, but have nothing to do 
with the financial support of a university. 

In the column "Student Fees and all other sources," fees for board and rent are excluded for the 
same reason. Student fees yield about 60 per cent of the amounts in that column. 



—5— 
Comment and Interpretation — Table I 

The most important feature of the present study will be obscured for any 
reader who fails to grasp the significance of the "Average" shown in each 
column of the tables. The interpretative comments offered in this study 
deserve, therefore, the reader's attention. 

The last column of Table I gives the total income of each State univer- 
sity. The Average, in that column is significant only in connection with the 
number of students, etc., in Table II, and with the population, etc., in Table 
III. Duly related with the developments of the other tables, it will afford 
just means for estimating the cost of institutions in Texas which would have 
the average efficiency of the institutions referred to. Of course "average 
efficiency^ has no numerical meaning, since efficiency in a concrete case 
depends as much upon the wisdom of persons as it does upon the financial 
basis. It would be impossible in a statistical discussion to take the wisdom 
factor into account. 

One conspicuous advantage of this average is its reduction of the annual 
expenditure required for buildings to a normal or steady factor. In a com- 
parison of any two institutions for any one year, this factor is likely to be 
very disturbing. 

The sources of income are shown in the table; but I can not urge too 
emphatically that (except for one instructive lesson) the sources have no 
rational bearing upon the main question the people of Texas need to consider. 

The important point is the total income required. In considering any 
particular university, its income from Federal government, productive endow- 
ment, and any independent source, such as private donations, should be de- 
ducted; the remainder is what the State needs to provide. 

For instance, the University (including A. and M. College) in Texas has 
eleven times as much income from productive endowment, as is the case in 
Colorado. The fact is of no practical interest to the people of Colorado. If 
they desire the services of the "Average" university, they have simply to sup- 
ply the difference. Or, to take another example, past experience entitles the 
people of some States* to count upon a substantial yearly income from private 
donations. So much the better for them, but that has, as yet, no practical 
bearing upon the question in Texas. 

The column "Additional Appropriations" affords an instructive lesson, if 
Texas is to take a place among the States whose practice is shown. The proof 
there lies open to the reader that, if the benefits of a tax for higher education 
are to be secured, a greater rate than the average is necessary. The experience 
is the same in every State, and in some the additional appropriations far 
exceed the incomes from the specific taxes. Surely the lesson is plain. 

The comparison of Texas with the "'Average" will be advantageously de- 
ferred until the data of Table II and Table III are also before us. 

*See reference to California on page 3. The University of California usually receives larger 
gifts than was the case in 1910 — the pear of the Table. 



— 6— 



Table II. 



1910-1911 

State Universities and 

A. & M. Colleges 


o a 
Ph 

O C8 m 

ass 

S5 *" m 


Number 

of students 

excluding 

Summer 

Schools 


Ratio of No. 
of skidents 
to No. of 
Professors 

and Instruc- 
tors 


Total 
annual income 


Total income 

divided by 

number of 

students 


Estimated value 

of grounds, 

buildings and 

equipment 


California 

Colorado 

Illinois 


421 
255 
578 
^26 
348 
470 
363 
333 
156 
320 
486 


4314 
2251 
4896 
3838 
3619 
6541 
4156 
2839 
1199 
4102 
4099 


10.2 

9.6 

8.5 

11.8 

10.4 

13.9 

11.4 

8.5 

7.7 

12.8 

8.4 


$1,672,716 

622,454 
1,560,040 
1,141,453 
1,418,883 
2,155,624 
1,806,800 
748,982 
615,110 
1,363,229 
1,789,469 


$388 
294 
319 
297 
392 
330 
435 
264 
513 
332 
437 


$9,488,122 
2,618,771 
4,304,935 


Indiana 


2,296,150 


Iowa 


5,684,239 


Michigan 


6,427,722 


Minnesota 


6,070,000 


Nebraska 


1,929,850 


North Dakota 

Ohio 


1,590,500 
6,253,138 


Wisconsin 


5,660,072 






Average 


369 


3805 


10.2 


$1,357,706 


$364 


$4,756,680 






Kansas 


270 


4082 


15.1 


$1,098,047 


$269 


$2,895,363 


Missouri 


173 


2741 


15.8 


$853,793 


$311 


$2,366,337 






Univ. of Tex 

A. & M. Col 
Woman's Col. 


107 
68 
26 


1939 
1057 

272 


18.1 
15.5 
10.5 


$483,291 

364,829 

42,675 


$249 
345 
157 


$1,818,000 

1,195,485 

201,000 


Texas 


201 


3268 


16.3 


$890,795 


$273 


$3,214,485 







Comment and Interpretation — Table II. 

In the column, "Total Income Divided by Number of Students/' the 
exact nature and derivation of the figures is stated in the heading of 
the column, and the reader needs only to be reminded that every insti- 
tution concerned expends considerable sums on scientific research, agri- 
cultural experiment stations, geological surveys, and "university extension''' 
services of great variety. In some instances thousands of persons not in- 
cluded in the "number of students" are systematically taught by correspond- 
ence. A great many other services to the State and to individual citizens, 
besides teaching the students "for the regular term of enrollment," might be 
mentioned. 

The numbers in the first column exclude tutors and student assistants. 

The second column gives the number of students for regular term of enroll- 
ment, excluding summer school and short-course students, and those who 
study through correspondence. Preparatory students are also excluded in the 
few cases where any such are received. One exception to the last statement 
has been mentioned in speaking of the Texas college for women. 



In the column "Ratio of Number of Students to Number of Professors 
and Instructors," and in the column "Total Income Divided by the Number 
of Studentc," either of two procedures might be followed. 

Consider the "Income Divided by the Number of Students" : The average 
of the numbers stating the facts for the eleven different States represents an 
average condition referring to the eleven different conditions in the eleven 
different States. The result, $364, is given in the table. On the other hand, 
the total income of all the institutions divided by the total number of stu- 
dents gives a corresponding fact for the 41,854 students and the $14,934,760 
of the entire group, which is $357. 

In the column giving the ratio of number of students to number of teach- 
ers, it happens that the result is the same either way. 

Table III 



States 


Population 
Census 1910 


Amount s p e n t by 
State Institutions 
for Higher Educa- 
tion per inhabitant. 


Assessed valuation of 
property in the State in 
1910 —all reduced to 50 
per cent of actual value 


Amount spent by 
State Institutions 
for Higher Educa- 
tion per $1000 of 
wealth at 50 per cent 
of actual value 


Tax rate in eents on 
SlOO, at 50 per cent 
of actual value, which 
would provide the 
part of total cost 
paid by the State 


California 


2,377,549 
799,024 
5,638,591 
2,700,876 
2,224,771 
2,810,173 
2,075,708 
1,192,214 
577,056 
4,767,121 
2,333,860 


$ .71 

.83 
.28 
.42 
.64 
.77 
.87 
.63 
1.06 
.29 
.77 


$2,373,897,092 
622,328 666 
3,237,972,675 
1,480,110,080 
1,512,710,640 
1,451,012,615 
1,746,329,110 
1,038,675,187 
696,485,482 
1,960,567,353 
1,470,706,421 


$ .70 

1.06 

.48 

.77 

.94 

1.48 

1.03 

.72 

.86 

.69 

1.22 


±\ 


Colorado 


1\ 


Illinois 


3| 


Indiana 


4 


Iowa 


7 


Michigan 

Minnesota 

Nebraska 


H 
8f 
5 


North Dakota 

Ohio 

"Wisconsin 


51 


Average 2,499,722 


$ .58 


$1,599,163,211 


$ .91 


6 


Kansas | $1,690,949 


$ .65 


$1,528,943,030 $ .71 6 


Missouri 


3,293,335 


$ .26 


$2,255,372,739 $ .38 


3 


Texas 


3,896,542 


$ .22 


$2,391,109,795 


$ .37 


2f 











Note: The next to the last column does not state the tax paid on property worth $2000, but 
what would have to be paid on that amount of property, if the institutions were maintained entirely 
by taxation. The last column gives the rates actually paid (without making due allowance for 
cost of collection and delinquency) on assessments alleged to be at 50 per cent, of actual value. 

The rates in every case are reduced to the same basis of assessment, 50 percent of actual value. 
For instance, the nominal rate of tax for the University of Nebraska is 10 cents, and nearly 3 cents 
is added in additional appropriation by each Legislature; but the basis of assessment in Nebraska is 
only 20 per cent of actual value. Hence, in the just treatment of facts presented in this study, the 
rate in Nebraska is put down in its true relation, as only 5 cents. 



— 8— 

Comment and Interpretation — Table III 

The assessed valuation of property in each State has been reduced to the 
same percentage of actual value. The reported percentages* for the States 
considered comprise valuations at 20 per cent, 25 per cent, 33 per cent 
33-J per cent, 35 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 55 per cent, 60 per cent, 
80 per cent, and 100 per cent of actual value. The Texas assessment has 
been assumed to be at 50 per cent of actual value. Unless reduced to the 
same basis, comparison would be absurd. What would it mean, for instance, 
to compare directly Nebraska's assessment at 20 per centum of actual value 
with Wisconsin's genuine full rendition at 100 per centum of actual value? 
Assessed values are vague enough at best; but probably each State falls short 
of the truth, for its alleged basis, to approximately the same extent, and 
when all are reduced to the same basis comparisons may be made. 

It may be remarked that the reported percentages of actual value will be 
high, if the assessments should be compared with estimates of wealth, such as 
those of the Department of Labor and Commerce of the Census Bureau. It is 
the opinion of the writer that the reported percentages (33 and 60) for 
Illinois and Ohio are disproportionately high. Doubtless much wealth 
escapes the assessor, but the matter in hand is practically limited to wealth 
that is listed by the tax assessor. The question has little to do with the 
important object of this investigation, which is to ascertain the actual cost 
of a commonwealth university having the average efficiency of the better sort 
of such institutions. How all the existing wealth in Texas, or in any other 
State, might be equally reached for taxation, is another and more difficult 
question. 

The column, "Amount Spent by State Institutions for Higher Education 
per $1000 of Wealth at 50 Per Cent of Actual Value/' does not show the actual 
cost to each owner of property worth $2000, but what the owner of such 
property would pay if the institutions were maintained entirely by direct 
taxation. The last column gives for each State the tax rate in cents on the 
$100 of assessment alleged to be at 50 per cent of actual value, which would 
provide the part of the cost that was paid by the State. 

It should be constantly borne in mind that the valuable fact for the prac- 
tical consideration of every statesman and intelligent citizen of Texas is the 
proper total cost of the institutions needed by the people of this State. 

The income from the Federal government and permanent endowment and 
any other independent source is a known factor. Deduct that amount, what- 
ever it may be, and the remainder will be what the people must pay, if they 
propose to secure for themselves the services renderd by the "average" com- 
monwealth university in the group of States considered. 

The "Average" in the column showing the amounts spent per $1000 of 
wealth at 50 per cent of actual value might be derived in either of two ways : 
by taking the average of the eleven different conditions in the eleven States. 

*The assessments for the year 1910 and percentages of actual value have been taken from the 
World Almanac and Encyclopedia, issues of 1911 and 1912. For Michigan and Texas no percentum 
of actual value was given, but the Michigan Board of Tax Commissioners has carefully estimated 61 
per cent, for the 1911 assessment. Sixty per cent, was taken as the basis for reducing the 1910 as- 
sessment in Michiaan, and the Texas assessment wasset'downas being at 50 per cent, of actual value. 

For Iowa the 1911 assessment is used, because thereport for 1910 did not include the railroads and 
telegraph and telephone lines. The Nebraska assessment is also for 1911, that for 1910 not being 
given. The Kansas assessment for 1910 is used, but instead of the 100 per cent, alleged for that year, 
90 per cent, was taken from the report for 1911 as the basis for reducing the 1910 assessment to the 
uniform basis of the Table. 



— 9— 

or by considering the total valuation of property and the total expenditure 
of the entire group. The former procedure yields the 90 cents given in the 
table; the other way gives 85 cents. 

In the column "Amount Spent by State Institutions for Higher Educa- 
tion per Inhabitant." the average of the different conditions is 66 cents, and 
the total annual cost of all the institutions divided by the total population of 
all the States is 54 cents. 

In the last column the average of the different rates is 6 cents, and the 
corresponding fact for the entire group is 5-J cents. 

For the purpose of what may be called a composite photograph, the appro- 
priate averages have been given in the tables. 

One concluding remark should be made concerning the original data. 
Within the available time, no pains have been spared to make them accu- 
rate; but no one could know better than the writer that accuracy has been 
only approximated. Printed reports have been corrected by correspondence 
as far as possible. Some points remain unverified, but, judging from experi- 
ence, and from the nature of the data, it may be believed that the "Average'" 
would nowhere be substantially altered by further corrections. Particular 
items would be altered by prolonged investigations; but the changes would 
work both ways, and the sum totals could not be much affected. In every 
column it would probably be a case of compensating errors which are elim- 
inated from the average. 



The "Average." 

We may now consider the "Average" of this group of States, selected at 
the outset as being the States which have at least undertaken by reasonable 
financial measures to secure efficient services from their State institutions for 
higher education. That the people of those States appreciate what they are 
experiencing, is demonstrated by the fact that their Legislatures regularly 
appropriate an additional amount approximately equal to tne proceeds of the 
specific taxes for the same purpose. 

The "Average" is a State with a population of 2,499,722 (Texas, 3,896,- 
542) ; with property, assessed at 50 per cent, of actual value, amounting to 
$1,599,163,211 (Texas, $2,391,109,795). 

The commonwealth university of this average State spends yearly in its 
activities 66 cents per inhabitant and 90 cents per $1000 of an assessment at 
50 per cent of actual value (Texas, 22 cents, and 37 cents), or $1,357,706 
(Texas. $890,795). Its institution has 369 professors and instructors 
(Texas^ 201) : 3805 students (Texas, 3268) ; and a "plant" valued at $4,- 
756.680 (Texas, 3,214,485). 

In order to adjust matters to an equal basis for comparison, it is necessary 
to reduce the average conditions to an equilibrium with Texas conditions. 
How should this be done ? 

Three factors require consideration, viz. : population, wealth, number of 
students. 



—10— 

If the average State grew in population to that of Texas, and if its insti- 
tution continued to spend 66 cents per inhabitant, it would spend $2,571,708 
a year. 

If the taxed wealth of the average State grew to that of Texas, and its 
institution continued to spend 90 cents per $1000 (at 50 per cent of actual 
value), it would spend $2,151,999. 

There is no theoretical ground for combining two results, one derived from 
population and the other from assessed property valuations; but, in order to 
give weight to both factors, let us take the mean, or half the sum of the two. 
That gives $2,361,858. 

If the alternative rates, derived on page 9, the 54 cents per inhabitant 
spend by the 27,496,943 inhabitants of all the States as one body, and the 85 
cents per $1000 of the total property assessment of the entire group, were 
used instead of the averages, the results would be $2,104,133 and $2,032,444, 
giving the mean $2,068,289. The difference is $292,569 ; but the allowances 
already made, and others yet to be made, more than cover that difference. 
The averages give the more just basis, and the most reliable result afforded 
by the data is ^$2,361,858. 

That amount, then — $2,361,858 — is what the State institutions of higher 
education would have spent last year in Texas, if they had been working on 
the same standard of efficiency as the average of the institutions of the other 
States, and if the youth of Texas sought the advantages of higher education 
in the average proportion. 

At this point an element is introduced which it is impossible to deal with 
adequately from the statistical data. 

We will proceed, however, to ascertain, as nearly as may be, what it would 
have cost to have done equally well last year by the students then on our 
campuses, as was done in the other States. It must be borne in mind that 
this procedure ignores the fact that the population of Texas is nearly 60 per 
cent greater than that of the "Average"' State, and also loses sight of the 
manifold services needed by the people besides the instruction of the youths 
who go to college. 

Tn the entire group of States there were 41,854 students in the State insti- 
tutions, out of a total population of 27,496,943 ; that is to say, about 1.5 
for each 1000. Accordingly our "Average" State, after growing to the popu- 
lation of Texas, would have increased the number of its students from 3805 
to 5844. 

The State institutions of Texas had last year 3268 students, which is only 
0.8 of a student per 1000 of population. The average expenditure was 
$364 per student. Hence an opponent of a proposal for the proper main- 
tenance might claim that the average scale of investment would have been 
reached by an expenditure equal to the average rate per studenl multiplied 
by the number of regular students in the Texas institutions last war. That 
resull is $364 multiplied by 3268, or $1,189,552. 

The total expenditure by the three Texas institutions last year from all 
sources (only $595,017 from taxation) was $890,795. Accordingly, it would 
have required aboul $300,000 more to have given the Texas institutions lasl 
yeaT the average teaching force. Of course, this view disregards all other 
services in the people, and considers only the teaching of students in regular 



—11— 

attendance. Investigation and research, correspondence schools, experiment 
stations, and extension work of all kinds are excluded. 

If we had better maintained institutions in Texas, more students would 
seek to profit by them. And if institutions of average efficiency were de- 
veloped, Texas would not remain behind the average State in the number per 
thousand of her inhabitants who would avail themselves of the advantages 
offered. 

It would be foolish to base calculations for the future upon the number of 
students last year, and it would be advisable not to assume a lower level for 
Texas than the average of all the States that are even attempting to secure 
the benefits in question. 

One-and-a-half students per thousand of population might exceed the fact 
for two years, but no longer, if better equipment and maintenance increased 
and extended the advantages of attendance. Even under present conditions, 
the number of students grows rapidly every year. 

The one or two years that might allow some saving in the factor of cost 
which depends upon the numher of students would afford an opportunity to 
supply deficiencies in equipment. This is the point at which to consider the 
enormous discrepancy in the cost of the "plant," that exists between Texas 
and the "Average." 

The average institution in a State of only five-eighths of our population 
has a plant costing $1,500,000 more. 

Texas could not save out of an income provided for the normal attendance 
in other States, during the year or two that might elapse before the number 
of students became normal, enough to supply even $500,000 of the present 
$1,500,000 deficiency in material equipment. This fact disposes of all candid 
objections to immediate action on the proper basis, that might be offered on 
account of the present sub-normal attendance. 

It is not the purpose of this discussion to exhort, hut to give reliable infor- 
mation. Comment has been confined to elucidation : a fact is not the truth 
for a mind that does not comprehend its true relations. 

The important conclusion of this investigation is now at hand. 

It would be an affectation of impossible accuracy to deal, at this stage, 
with figures in the first four places of enumeration. From the conservative! v 
derived figure, $2,361,858, we may take $2,350,000 as the lowest that will 
admit Texas to the company of the States that are giving practical attention 
to their institutions for higher education. 

Of that amount, about $350,000 a year may be counted upon from the 
Federal government, endowment, and student fees. The remainder. $2,000.- 
000. would have to be provided for the three existing institutions from the 
revenues of the State. 

Upon the Texas assessment for 1911, $2,515,594,626, a tax of eight-tenths 
of a mill (8 cents on $100) would yield $2,012,475, less cost of collection. 

If the deduction for cost of collection and delinquency were estimated, as 
is customarilv done in the Comptrollers department, at 20 per cent of the 
nominal proceeds, the net proceeds of such a tax would be reduced by $402.- 
495, or to $1,609,980. That amount would fall short by nearly $400,000 
of the $2,000,000 required. But 20 per cent for cost of collection and de- 



—12— 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS' 



019 885 465 7 ' 



iinquency is, I believe, too high an estimate. The net proce~„_ 
tax would not fall very short of die requisite sum — $2,000,000. 

The rate of eight-tenths of a mill, or 8 cents on $100, would suffice, with 
wise administration, to reach the present average standard in the other States. 

One of the great advantages of an established tax for educational institu- 
tions is the fact that the increase of property value keeps pace, at the same tax 
rate, with the increase of students and with the increasing needs of a growing 
population for many direct public services. 

The rate, 8 cents on the $100, if Texas candidly proposes to attend intelli- 
gently to the business of providing for efficient services from its State insti- 
tutions of higher education, will seem high only to those not informed of the 
actual practice in other States. 

The average of the eleven States is 6 cents (without due allowance for 
cost of collection), and that has already been raised by the recently estab- 
lished 10-cents tax for the University of Illinois. The reader is also re- 
minded again that in California, Illinois, and Ohio, great universities which 
have been entirely excluded from consideration equal or exceed the State 
universities. 

The co-operation of the people to secure for themselves the services of a 
comprehensive and efficient university, requires in Wisconsin 8J cents, in 
Minnesota 8f cents, in Michigan 6J cents, in Iowa 7 cents, in Colorado 7 -J 
cents, — with almost no allowance for cost of collection. These being the 
States of the whole list with which Texas would be most justly and most 
willingly compared, the 8 cents suggested for Texas should not startle anybody. 

There are many Texans who would not be permanently satisfied by secur- 
ing only average educational and scientific services from their institutions; 
but it would be prudent to postpone any undertaking looking toward leader- 
ship, until appropriate measures for so high an enterprise can be adopted in 
the light of experience with an average status. 

Perha/ps the people of Texas do not now desire enlarged and more efficient 
services from their State institutions; but, if they do, they may learn here 
what they will undoubtedly have to pay to secure such services. 

Upon the question of desire, all that could be needed is a knowledge of the 
many valuable services to the people, not now generally understood outside of 
those States whose social and industrial enterprises are already profiting by 
such services. 

The people would desire if they knew. 

Arthur Lefevre, 

Secretary for Research. 

Austin, Texas, 

March 28, 1912. 



Hollinger Corp. 
P H8.5 



LIBRARY OF UUNbHcaa 



01 



9 885 465 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



